Leader Products Pty Ltd v Desmond Dumbrell

No judgment structure available for this case.

8136000150-, PRINCIPAL REGISTRY:# 2

SENT BY: CHPMBERS FAX

:21-

1-02

; 1 5 : 0 8

;

JUDGMENT ~ 0 . 3 2 b . / 9 1

m:
-

(R.rpondent8)

SQxwL w a n J
30 October 1991
Ilboboue
-

Tha rerpondentm have moved for m ordar l
rule.3(3) of the Ruler of thir Court that t h q not b. roqulrad !
oxadnation on behalf of tha applicant. Alternatively, they l
naek to be raliwmd of tha neod to anrwer certain epbciflad
I

armear copyright. Th. drawing8 are alleged to contain
Ey it8 atatment of olah, the applicant ha8 plardad that it/ purchared 4 "HimekW maahine for making rubbrr ringa used in, i
cartrrtlnq animal^. It ir further pleaded that the machine
did not operafa ratirfactorily at first and warn rubatantially
roderignod and modified in accordance with brawings prepared1

!

by r rervant or agent of the applicant in which the applicant'

SENT BY :CHAMBERS

FAX

;21-

1-82

;

1 5 : 2 0

:

8 1 3 8 0 0 0 1 5 0 ~ P R I N C I P A L REGISTRY;#

1

confidmntial information, and further confidantial inforrnrcion m raid to h a m c- into oxirtonca in tha courre of the modification of tha mchine.

I
1Ph. firrt rerpndent war a diroetor and the reeond rampondontl
wam an omployoe of thm applioant and it ir allogod that in
broach of copyright, in brmach of confidoncm, and Ln breach of
thoir rompoctivo contract8 of ozqlaymont they dirclomed thm
drawingr and the allegedly confidmntial infonnrtion to the
third, fourth and fifth rmpondents who are a31oged in tun! to

I

have induced brarcher of contract by the firrt and roeend; I
i
roapondentr. Tho mmcond rompondent, it in agreed, was a; tmchnical engineer formerly employed by tho applicant in' connection with thm mubject machina and in conjunction with

the firrt and fifth raepondentr met up the third m d fourth, i

rorpondont cmpnier. I
l

1 have b a n told that tha into~rogatori.8 for tha exadnation

of tha macond raapondont contain, with two additionr, all the interrogatorlor to 1H found in the rot for the examination of

thm firrt and third rmrgondentm, and victually identical set81 i for tho examination of the fourth and fifth respondent#,
Accordingly, I propore to conmider in nome dmtail, and in

I

order the lnterrogatoriom for the examination of tho mecondi
rmmpondent, on the undmrmtanding that my obromtionr h a w
equal application to the corrorponding intaaogatories in the

othor ratr. 1
This interrogatory is in these terms:

"1. Look at paragraph 7 of the Amended Defence and state:

(a) the date upon which the Minock machine arrived at the Applicant's premises in Australia ("the arrival date");
(b) on what date or dates the Applicant successfully coamissioned the Minock machine;
(c) whether any, and if so identify precisely what problems were encountered by the Applicant in commissioning the Minock machine;
(d) each act, fact, matter, circumstance and thing by reason of which it is said that the Applicant successfully collmriasioned the Minock machine including, without limiting the generality of the foregoingr

(L)

the first date upon which the Applicant successfully caused the Minock machine to produce animal castration rings suitable for sale;

(ii)

the volume of animal castration rings suitable for sale that were produced by the Minock machine between the arrival date and 1 May, 1984;

(iii)

where any animal castration rings produced by the Minock machine prior to May, 1984 may now be inspected;

(iv)

the usual particulars of any sale by the Applicant of animal castration rings produced by the Minock machine prior to May, 1984 known to you."

objectionable. Directed to the second respondent who, I On its face, and standing alone, this interrogatory is not

gather, is no longer an employee of the applicant, it does not require him to make enquiries of other persons who were or who still are employees of the applicant, or to examine any documents no longer in his possession or power which he may have seen, or even produced, whilst an employee of the applicant. So understood, it requires him only to answer from such knowledge information and belief as remains to him from

the t h e when he was an employee of the Applicant. Accordingly, upon the basis that this interrogatory has to be answered by the second respondent, I would not require an anamr to the corresponding interrogatory directed to the third, fourth or fifth respondents who could only answer it after making enquiries of the first and second respondents.
"Look at paragraph 8 of the Amended Statement of Claim and paragraph
8 of the Amrnded Defence and etate whether, at the time Minock
Manufacturing Co. supplied the Minock machine to the Applicant, the

Applicant X

(a) roceived no dipping tanks for use with the Minock machine;

(b)

rmceived no detailed drawings supplied by the Minock Manufacturing Co. of dipping tanks for use with the Hinock machine?
(c) encountered deeign problems with:

(L) the beader aesembliesj
(ii) the atripper assemblies;
(iii) the tip-wiping brushes;
(iv) uneupported conveyor change in the drying oven?
(V) the machine drive of the Hinock machine?
(Vi) the aluminium pins to be used in the said machine

for dipping into latex?

(Vii) production of animal castration rings with
"internal flats" in edge;
(viii) an after treatment process for the treating of animal castration rings produced by the said machine. '

On the assumption that it is intelligible to the second respondent, the comments which I have made on interrogatory 1, apply with equal force to this interrogatory.
"(a) If no to either part (a) or part (b) of interrogatory 2 hereof, describm precisely any:
dipping tanks;
drawings (giving the usual particulars thereof);

received by the Applicant at the time the Minock machine was received from the Minock Manufacturing Company and state where thm same now is and may be inspected;

(b) If yes to any part of part (c) of interrogatory 2 hereof, dmscrib. each of the aaid deeign problame encountered by the Applicant and each step taken by the Applicant to resolve each such problm including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the involvement of each of the First or Second
. Rospondmnts in any such step."

The comments made on interrogatory 1 also apply to part (a) of this interrogatory. I consider part (b) of this interrogatory to be oppressive because a fair answer would seem to require a detailed description of each attempted solution of each design problem, not only by the second respondent himself but by each other employee or agent of the applicant of which he had knowledge, and a corresponding description of each successful solution of each problem. Even if it stood alone, I would not require an answer to part (b) of this interrogatory.

"State whether the Applicant modified, designed or redesigned the
following parts of the Minock machine, namely:

(a)

the dog. tank into which pins could be inaerted prior to them being coatod with latex;

(b)

the tip-wash tank into which pine could be inserted prior to them being coated with latex;
(c) the latex tank;
(d) the parer drive to the tip-wiper brushes;
(m) the length of the beader/stripper brushes;
(f) the power control to the beader and stripper brushes;
(p) the chalk tank;

(h) the design of the aluminium pins;
(i) the manner in which the aluminium pins could be attached to the battens of the conveyor chain;

( j ) the machine drive. "

In my view, this interrogatory is directed to specific acts of modification design or redesign about which the second reapondent can be required to answer in the way discussed in relation to interrogatory 1.
"(a) If yea to any part of interrogatory 4 hereof, state precisely each modification, design or redesign undertaken by the Applicant and state whether such work was undertaken by:
(i)         John Grigg;
(ii)        Desmond Dumbrell;
iiii)       Peter Martin;
(LV)        any other and if so state which person or persona;

(b)

If yes to parts (i), (ii) and (iii) of part (a) of this interrogatory, etate precisely the work undertaken by each of John Grigg, Demand Dumbrell and Peter Martin respectively and the dates upon which such work was so undertaken;

(c) If yes to parts (i), (ii) and (iii) of part (a) of this

interrogatory, state whether:

( 5 ) John Grigg;
(ii) Desmond Dumbrell;
(iii) Peter Martin;
prepared any technical drawings in relation to parts to be designed, redesigned or modified for the Minock machine and if no, give the usual particulars of each such drawing;

(d)

If yes to any part of interrogatory 4 hereof, state with respct to each modification, design or redesign referred to in your answor to part (a) of this interrogatory:

(i)

whether any persons, business firm or other company (not being an employee of the Applicant) was requested to manufacture any (and if so state precisely which) parts or provide any (and if so state precisely which) services in relation to each much modification, design or redesign work;

(ii)

if yes to any part of part (i) of thim interrogatory, give the usual particulars of each request including, with limiting the generality of the foregoing:

A. the date of the request;
B. to whom the request was directed;
C. the subject matter of the request!

D.

whether any (and if so which) parts or services were delivered to the Applicant in response to the request;

E.

the identity of each person or company by whom such parts and/or mervices were supplied to the Applicant."

I consider this interrogatory to be oppressive for reasons
similar to those advanced in respect to interrogatory 3 (b).
"State whether the Applicant:

(a) developed a formulation of the dope solution to be placed in the dope tank of the Minock machine;
(b) worked to identify the appropriate temperature of the dope solution in the dope tank;
(C) worked to identify the appropriate temperature of the
latex solution in the latex tank;
(d) experimented with the production of an oven to cure the

animal castration rings produced by the ninock machine and incorporated that over in the production process;
(e) dweloped a machine having the layout and having one or more (and if so state precisely which) of the characteristics identified in Daraaravh 1-14 (both inclusive) listed in Part 1 oi ≠ure A to' the Supplementary Further and Better Particulars of the

~pf;licant*s - Amended Statemant of Claim dated 28
September, 1988.

If it stood alone, I would require an answer to this
interrogatory in accordance with the observations outlined above in respect of interrogatory 1, but, for reasons similar
to those advanced in respect of interrogatory 3 (b), I would not require an answer to interrogatory 7 which is dependent on an affirmative answer to one or more parts of interrogatory 6.
"Look at each of the drawings described in Part I1 of annexure A to tha supplementary further and better particulars of the Applicant's Awndod Statement of Claim dated 28 September, 1988 and filed herein ("the applicant's drawing.") and state with respect to each such

drawing 8

(a) Whether the name was created by:

(L) John Grigg;
(ii) Peter Martin;
(iii) John Origg and Peter Martin;
(iv) any other and if ao state which person or persons;
(b) Tha data upon which each such drawing was created;

(c) Whether each drawing was created by it. author in the course of
the mployment of the author by the Applicant and if not, with respect to each such drawing, each act, fact, matter, circumstance and thing (but not the evidence) by reason of which it is said the drawing was not created by an employee of the Applicant in the course of his employment by the Applicant."

Although this interrogatory requires the second respondent to examine 51 separate drawings, if it stood alone, I would require an answer to parts (a) and (b) thereof but not to so

much of part ( c ) as requires a statement of the matters by reason of which it is said that the creator of a given drawing

did not create it in the course of his employment by the applicant. I regard that part of the interrogatory as oppressive because it is fishing and enquires after matters of law or mixed fact and law.
Another objection taken to answering this interrogatory is

that before inspecting th applicant's drawings for the purpose of answering it, the second respondent is required to give an undertaking to keep confidential the information derived from that inspection. I do not regard that as a valid objection because the undertaking would preserve the confidentiality only of information derived from the inspection and would not impose any obligation in respect of information forming part of the second respondent's "know how" or otherwise derived from some other source.
"If yr. to part (ii) or (iii) of interrogatory 8 hereof, state each act, fact, matter, circumstance and thing by reason of which it is maid that each much drawing was created by:
(a) Peter Martin;
(b) Peter Martin and John Qrigg".

Interrogatory 8 by asking whether a given person or persons created a particular drawing requires an answer as to the physical act of creation based on recollection and visual inspection of the drawing. Interrogatory 9, if it is not more

surplusage must go beyond that requirement and oblige the

deponent to identify matters by reason of which it is said

that the second respondent alone or in conjunction with John Griff made some unspecified intellectual or other intangible contribution to the creation of each drawing. So understood this interrogatory is oppressive for reasons of the kind indicated above in respect of the concluding part of interrogatory 8(c).
10 and 11 a:

"10. Look at each of the Applicant's drawings and look at each of thome parts of interrogatories 5(a), 7(a) and 8(a) above to which you have answered yes, and state each act, fact, matter, circumstance and thing by reason of which it is said that:
(a) the Applicant's drawings;
(b) the information contained in the Applicant's drawings;

(c) each item of the information developad by the Applicant admitted in your anmwera to interrogatories 4 and 6 above :

(1) was published to persons othmr than the Applicant or its employees (giving the usual particulars with respect to each act of publication) ;
(ii) contained information publicly available stating, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each act, fact, matter, circumstance and thing by reamon of which it im said that each such item of information was publicly available and give the usual particulars of its publication."
11. "Look at paragraph 15 of the Amended Statement of Claim and
paragraph 15 of the Amended Defence and state each act, fact, matter, circumstance and thing by reason of which it is said that the information conmtituted by, or contained in:

(a) the first drawings;
(b) the second drawings;

(C) the design developents described in the particulars
appended to paragraph 9 of the amended Statement of
Claim;
im not information confidential to the Applicant."

Paragraph 15 of the amended statement of claim is in these

terms r

"The information constituted by or contained in:
(a) the first drawings;
(b) the second drawingsi and
(C) the deaign developments described in the particulars appended
to paragraph 9 above;

is information confidential to the Applicant ("the Applicant's
oonfidential information")."

By paragraph 15 of their amended defence the first second and third reepondente have pleaded:
"They deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 15
thetaof. "

In my view that bald traverse does not conform with 0.llrr. 13 and 18 of the Rules of this Court which require:
"13. (1) Subject to sub-rule (3) and to Order 43, rule 7 (which hale with parsons under dieability), an allegation of fact made by a party in his pleading is deemed to be admitted by the opposite party unless it is traversed by that party in his pleading or a joinder of issue under rule 14 oparates as a denial of it.
(2) A traverse may be made either by a specific denial oc by a
statamont of spacific non-admission.
(3) Subject to sub-rule (4). every allegation of fact made in a statament of claim or counterclaim which the party on whom it is served does not intend to admit must be specifically traversad by him in hi8 defence or defence to counterclaim, a8 the case may be; and a general denial of such allegations, or a general atatamant on non-admission of tham is not a sufficient traveree of them.
(4) Any allegation that a party has suffered damage and any
allegations as to the amount of damages is deemad to be
traversed unle8s specifically admitted."

"18. When a party in any pleading denies an allegation of fact in
the prwious pleading of the opposite party, he must not do so
evasively or generally, but must answer the point of substance,

the draftclman of interrogatories 10 and 11 to explore in a That non-compliance with those rules has induced, I consider, in accordance with rule 13 of this Order."

fiehing, epeculative way whether the first, second and third respondents are contending that the relevant information was not confidential because of some prior publication or because it waa already in the public domain or for some other reason. Accordingly, paragraph 15 of the amended defence should be

amended to make clear what it is that the first three respondents say about the allegedly confidential information. When that is done interrogatories like the present interrogatories 10 and 11 should be unnecessary, at least in their present wide form.
"Look at each of the documents listed in Annexure B to the supplanontary further and better particulars of the Applicant's Anwndrd Statouant of Claim dated 28 Supteanber, 1988 and filed herein and state with respoct to each document-:

(a) whother the same has been published to any per#on other than the Applicant, its employees and the peraon creating the documont and if so, give the usual particulars of each publication known to you;
(b) the information contained therein has been published to any person other than the Applicant, its employees or the person creating the document and if so, give the usual particulars of each act of publication known to you."

I consider that an answer to this interrogatory should not be required until the defence of the first second and third respondents has been amended in the way indicated in my diecussion of Interrogatories 10 and 11 to make clear how far

publication. and in respect of what documents there is an issue of prior "Look at paragraph 16 of the Amended Statement of Claim and paragraph

16 of the Amended Defence and state each act, fact, matter, circumstance and thing by reason of which it is said that the information relating to:

(a) the conduct of the Applicant's business;
(b) tho manufacturing processes employed by the Applicant;
(C) the manufacturing processes employed by the Applicant's related
companies;
(d) the conting and pricing methods employed by the Applicant8

(e)

the names and addresses of the suppliers of raw materials, componmnt parts and technical services to the Applidant;

(f) thm promotion of the Applicant's products;
(g) thm distribution of the Applicant's products;

(h)

thm naans and addreamem of each of the Applicant's customers and their buying histories;
(i) thm sale of the Applicant's products;
is not information confidential to the Applicant."

By paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim it is pleaded:
"hrther or in thm alternative, the Applicant has developed and crmatmd information relating to the conduct of its businees, the manufacturing processes employed by it and it8 related companies and thm proaaotion, distribution and sale of its products which is confidential to it ("the Applicant's further confidential

information") .

PARTICULARB

The Applicant's further confidential information includes:
i) the nmes and addresees of the suppliers to the Applicant of the components uaed by the Applicant#

ii) the names, addreases and buying histories of the Applicante# customers1
iii) the Applicant's production costs, pricing methods and the prices charged and discounts allowed to its customers for thm products supplied by it;
iv) the Applicant's manufacturing and/or production records, order books, financial records and books of account."
There then follow paragraphs alleging a duty owed by the first and eecond respondents to the applicant to keep confidential

to the applicant the applicant's further confidential information, and a duty of good faith, and breaches of those

duties which have been extensively particularized largely by reference to documents seized pursuant to an "aton P i u w order made by Jenkinson J on 16 June 1988. By paragraphs 16 to 23 of their amended defence the first, second and third reapondents have admitted that the first respondent and second respondent were employed by the applicant but have otherwise
generally denied the allegations in paragraphs 16 to 23 of the
amended statement of claim.

Although I coneider that interrogatory 13 in its present form ia too wide, that vice is partly attributable to the evasive general denials in paragraphs 16 and following of the amended defence. Accordingly, those paragraphs should be amended to conform with 011.rr. 13 and 18 and the applicant should be able to administer freeh interrogatories appropriately confined to the issues identified by the defence as so amended.
ries 14 and U:

These interrogatories respectively enquire whether each of the first respondent and the second respondent was employed by the applicant before 22 January 1988 and go on to require a statement as to each of the dates upon which he was employed by the applicant:

"(i) the title or each position held by him;
(ii)       each of the tasks, duties or responsibilities assigned to him;
(iii)      whether he was a director of the Applicant;
(iv)       the terms and conditions of his employment by the Applicant."

I regard that latter part of each of these interrogatories as
too wide and oppressive. It is permissible to ask of each reapondent whether on or between certain dates he was a director of the applicant or held some other specified position in its employ. It is also open to the applicant to ask whether there waa a term of the relevant contract of employment that the respondent assume some specific duty or responsibility or some other specified effect, or whether the respondent concerned was employed wholly or partly pursuant to an agreement embodied in some written document. However, to ask a deponent to set out each of the tasks duties or responsibilities assigned to him over a relatively lengthy period and all the terms and conditions of his employment over the same period is to enquire after matters of law or mixed fact and law and ie unduly onerous.
"State with reepmct to the mecondnamed Respondent:

(a) each tertiary course:

(i) c-nced;
(fib completed;
by the mecond Reapondent between the completion of his
mocondary education and 31et January, 1979;

(b)

each job held by the mecondnamed Respondent between the completion of his secondary education and 31et January, 1979 including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

(j.1 the n a m and addreee of hie amployer;
(ii) the precise duties undertaken by him in the couree of him employment;
(iii) the title or deecription of each job held by him."

The relevance of this interrogatory is not immediately apparent. Presumably it is designed to afford a basis for contradicting some anticipated defence that the information allegedly used by the second respondent after he left the applicant's employment was part of his general stock of "Know-
how" acquired from a course of tertiary education or
employment including that in the service of a person or persons other than the applicant. That defence has not been raised by the amended defence in its present uninformative version. Unless it were raised by the further amended defence in conformity with Ollrr 13 and 18 which I propose to require, I would disallow interrogatory 16 as irrelevant or enquiring after matters which are proper subjects only of cross-examination.
"Look at the Particulars appended to paragraph 22 of the Amended
atataunt of Claim and state with respect to each document there
dmscribod:

(a) whathmr such document was, on or about 20th June, 1988 in the
possession or under the power or control of the Respondents or
one or more of them, identifying precisely which;

(b)

if yes, with respect to any document in your answer to part (a) of this Interrogatory, state:

(i) on what date;
(ii) in what circumstances;
(iii) by whom acts;
the said document came into the possession or under the power
or control of each of the said Respondents;
(c) whether th. said document was obtained from:

(i)         the Applicant;
(ii)        any and if so which of the Respondents;
(iii)       any other and if so state precisely which person or persons. "

The particulars appended to paragraph 22 of the amended atatement of claim refer to seventeen specified document8 which were seized pursuant to the "mton P i u " order of Jenkinson J to which I have already referred. In the circumstances of this case I do not regard interrogatory 17 as oppressive or otherwise objectionable.
"Look at each of the drawings, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
marked Al-A24 (both inclusive) and state:

(a) by whom each drawing wae created;
on what date each drawing was created;

(C) whether each author of each drawing was, at the time of its creation, in the employ of the Applicant?

(b)

(d) whether the drawing was in the possession or under the power or
control of the Respondents or one or more of them on or about
30th June, 1988;

(0) if yes to part (d) of this Interrogatory with respct to any of
the said drawings, state:

(i) in what circumstances the Respondents or one or more of them c a w into the possession of each of the said drawings;
(ii) which actual Respondent first obtained possession of the said drawings;
(iii) from which actual person or persons the Respondents obtained possession of the said drawings;
(iv) in what circumstances the Respondents obtained possession of each of the said drawings."

I regard interrogatory 18 as being in similar case to interrogatory 8(a) discussed above and on the understanding that it does not require the second respondent, in order to answer it, to make enquiries of persons who are no longer his employees or agents, I consider that it should be answered.

"(a) State whether the Respondents or one or more of them (identifying precisely which) has, since January, 1987 sought to construct and/or constructed a machine to be ueed for the production of castration rings (the Respondents' machine);

(b) If yes to part (a) of this Interrogatory, state when work first commoncad on the design of the Respondents' machine;
(C) By which actual person or persons work was undertaken on the design of the Respondents' machine;

(d)

Whether any drawings were prepared for the design of the Respondents' machine or any components thereof and if so, give the unal particulars of each euch drawing;

(e)

Where the Respondents' machine and each of its component parts may now be found and inspected;
(f) Whether any drawings were obtained from:

(i) the Applicant;
(ii) any prson employed by the Applicant;
and utilised in the preparation and drawings and the ordering of capponents for use in the Respondents' machine or its developmnt;

(p) If yes to part any part of (f) of this Interrogatory, give the usual particulars of each such drawing and state from which actual prson or persons the Reapondents or one or more of them obtained posmession of the said drawing and the circumstances in which posmession of those drawings was obtained by the Respondents or one or more of them."

I consider, in the circumstances revealed by the pleadings, that this is a legitimate interrogatory and should be

"20. (a) State whether the firstnamed Respondent telephoned

Ur Q.C. Rhodes, Managing Director, Ritchie Tagg Ltd. in
the United Kingdom on or about 23rd Decembsr, 1987;

(b) If yes to part (a) of this Interrogatory, state the substance of the conversation.
21. Look at the document annexed hereto and marked "B" and state whether the firstnamed Respondent:
(a) signed the said letter;

(b) sent the said letter to Mr G.C. Rhodes, Managing
Director, Ritchie Tagg Ltd. on or about 22nd December,
1987;

(c)

if yes to part (b) of this Interrogatory, identify each of the projects discussed with Mr Rhodes in the visit

referred to in the said letter."

The foundation for these interrogatories is laid by paragraph

(d) (i) of the particulars appended to paragraph 22 of the
amended statement of claim which is in these terms:
"The Respondents or one or more of them approached Ritchey Tagg Ltd..
a company rqistered in England in an endeavour to induce that
company to cease to acquire products from the Applicant and to cease
to act as the Applicant's distributor in the United Kingdom and in
lieu thereof to purchase products from the Reapondents or one or more
Of them."

The letter which is annexure "B" to the interrogatories does not in terms amount to an admission of an approach to Ritchey Tagg Ltd of the kind described in paragraph (a)(i) of the particulars referred to above. Nor is there anything in the pleadings which makes specifically relevant a telephone call from the firet respondent to Mr Rhodes on or about 23 December 1987. Accordingly, I would disallow each of interrogatories
20 and 21.
tom 22 is in these terms:

"22. (a) state whether:

(L) the secondnamed Respondent;
(ii) the fourthnamed Respondent;

(iii)

any other and if so state which Respondent or Reapondentm requested Delalande Engineering of 6 Beckett Avenue, East Keilor to:
A. design;
B. manufacture;

aluminium pins on any and if so state precisely which date or dates between 27 November, 1987 and 22nd June, 1988;
(b) State whether:
(i) the secondnamed Respondent;
(ii) the fourthnamed Respondent;

(iii) drawing of an aluminium pin to be produced for the
Respondents supplied Delalande Engineering with a any other and if so state which Respondent or
Respondents or one or more of them between 27
November, 1987 and 22 June, 1988;
(c) If yes to any part of part (b) of this Interrogatory:

(L) give the usual particulars of each drawing;

(ii)

state by whom the drawing was created and on what date or dates;
(iii) state whether the drawing was obtained from:

A. the Applicant;
B. the aecondnamed Respondent;

C.

any other and if so state which person or peraons;

and give the circumstances in which the said drawing was so obtained from such person or persons. "

The baeis for this interrogatory is to be found in sub- paragraph (d)(ii) of the particulars appended to paragraph 22 of the amended statement of claim which recitesr
"(ii) The Reapondents or one or more of them procured or caused or pamitted to be procured from Dellande Engineering pins manufactured out of alloys the detail* of the formulation for which constitutes part of the Applicant's confidential information and the design specification for which constitutes part of the Applicant's confidential information for the banefit of the Fteapondents or one or more of them and to the detriment of the Applicant and its said business."

In the circumstancee of this case, I regard interrogatory 22 as a legitimate interrogatory which should be answered.
asks whether between 1 January 1986 and

1 June 1988 the respondents or one or more of them requested
any of eighteen specified companies or firms tor

"(L) deaign;
(ii) manufacture;
(iii) aasauble

any and if so which parts for the construction of or use with the
Raapondenta' machine."

=oaatorv 24 then asks:

"If yea to any part of Interrogatory 23 hereof, state with respect to
each such parson or organisation:

(a) the usual particulars of each request;
(b) whether (and if so give the usual particulars of) any:
(i) order;
(ii) invoice;
resulted f r m the said request;

(C) any drawing or drawings or other instructions (and if so give the usual particulars thereof);
ware supplied by any and if so which of the Respondents to that
person.

(d) each date upon which each request was made;

(m)

from what person or persona information was obtained which led to the request being directed by the Respondents to each such prson. "

The foundation for these interrogatories appears to be sub- paragraphs (d)(iii) and (iv) of the particulars appended to paragraph 22 of the amended statement of claim which are in these terms:

" (iii) The Respondents or one or more of them caused, procured or permitted or facilitated the manufacture of a machine to be used for the production of animal castration rings
utilising the Applicant's confidential information for
the benefit of the Respondents or one or more of them and
to the detriment of the Applicant and its said business.
(iv) The Respondents or one or more of them procured and obtained the Applicant's further confidential information for the purpose of utilising it for the benefit of the Respondents or one or more of them to the detriment of the Applicant and its said businees."

I do not regard either interrogatory 23 or 24 or both of them in combination to be sufficiently related in their present form to alleged misuse of the applicant's confidential information or further confidential information by

transmitting part of it to the suppliers or contractors specified in interrogatory 23 to compel an answer to either
interrogatory 2 3 or 24.
*(a) State whether between the months of June, 1986 and January,
1988:
(i) the firstnamed Respondent1
(ii) one or more of the other Respondents;
entered into an agreement with King Snaps Industrial Corp. pursuant to which, inter alia, the firstnamed Respondent was to receive a conmission payable with respoct to orders placed on the maid Xing Snaps Industrial Corp. by the Applicant;

(b)

If yarn to part (a) of this Interrogatory, give the usual particular. of each agreement;
(c) State whether:

(L) the firstn~led Reapondent;

(ii) any other and if so which Respondents;
received:
A. payment;

B. an offer of a payment;
of any colmnission with respect to orders placed on
Xing Snaps Industrial Corp. by the Applicant;

(d) If ye. to any part or part (c) of this Interrogatory:
(i) give full and precise particulars of each payment roceived including the date of payment, the amount of each payment and the precise person or persons by whom the payment warn made and by whom the payment was received;
(ii) give the usual particulars of each offer;

(R) If ye. to any part of parts (a) and (c) of this Interrogatory,
state whether:
(i) the substance of the agreement;
(ii) the fact of receipt of payments;

was comprmnicated to the Applicant and if so, give the usual
particular. of each compunication;

(f)

Look at the copy telexes annexed hereto and marked "C' and .tat.:

(i)

whether a copy of the said telexes was received by the firstnamed Respondent on or about 16 August,

1988;
(ii)        whether the Mr. Des Dumbrell therein referred to is the firstnanled Respondent;
(iii)       the circumstances in which the telexes were sent;
(iv)        to what the words "commission for our last shipment KSIC87577" refere."

That interrogatory finds an echo in sub-paragraph (e) of the particulars appended to paragraph 22 of the amended statement of claim which alleges that:
"Wrongfully, in breach of their said obligations and/or duties to the Applicant, the Firstnamed Respondent, further or in the alternative,

the S e c o n d n ~ Respondent has:

(c)

procured and/or received secret commissions from King Snaps Industrial Corporation, Taiwan for orders placed for the supply of goods to or at the request of the Applicant."

Sub-paragraph (e) of the particulars recites:
"(0) the firstnamed Respondent further or in the alternative the firstnamed and secondnaned Respondent have entered into a contract, arrangwent or understanding with King Snaps Industrial Corporation for the payment to them or one or other of them of secret conmiseions -into a bank account in Denver Colorado in the United States of America numbered 55-781-0 in the name of D.W. and R.V. Dumbrell with respect to orders placed by or on behalf of the Applicant for goods to b. supplied by King Snaps Industrial Corporation Taiwan."

In the light of those pleadings, I consider it permissible to administer an interrogatory in the form of interrogatory 25 provided that it is confined to the receipt of, or an agreement for the receipt of a commission from King Snaps Industrial Corporation by either or both the first respondent and the second respondent.

"Look at paragraph 24 of the Amended Defence and state:

(a)

with respect to each of the designs referred to in sub- paragraph (2) (a) thereof, a full description of each of the deaigns there referred to and where a copy thereof may be inspected and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, with respect to each such design, state each act, fact, matter, circumstance and thing by reason of which it is said that auch design has been applied industrially:

(L) by the Applicant;

(ii)

with the licence of the Applicant giving the usual particulars of each such licence;

(b)

with respect to each design identified in your answer to part (a) of this Interrogatory, each act, fact, matter, circumstance and thing by reason of which it ie said that articles to which the design has been applied have been:

(i) sold;
(ii) let for hire;
(iii) offered for sale;
(iv) exposed for sale;
(V) offered for hire;
(Vi) exposed for hire;
in Australia."

By paragraph 24 of their further amended defence of the first,
second and third respondents it is pleaded:
-24. (1) They deny each and every allegation contained in
paragraph 24 thereof.

(2) Alternatively to paragraph 24(1) hereof, if copyright subsists in any of the first drawings or the second drawing. and if the Applicant is the owner of any of that copyright and if the Respondents have done anything that, at the tinn when it was done, would otherwise have been within the scope of the copyright (all of which facts are denied) the first, second and thirdnamed Respondents will nevertheless say that -

(a) each of the designs corresponding with the copyright has been applied industrially by or with the licence of the Applicant;
(b) articles to which those designs have been applied have been sold, let for hire or offered or exposed tor sale or hire in Australia;
(C) at the t i m when the articles were sold, let for hire or offered or exposed for sale or hire they were not articles in respect of which the designs had been registered under the Designm Act 1906,

and accordingly, by virtue of S77 of the Copyright Act 1968, anything so done by the Respondents was not an infringement of copyright."

particulars of the allegations in paragraph 24(2) (a) and (b) In my view Interrogatory 26 embodies a legitimate request for

of the further amended defence and if those particulars are not supplied when the defence is redrawn in conformity with the order proposed above, I would require an answer to an interrogatory in the form of interrogatory 26.
"(a) State whether in or about 1987:
(i) the firmtnamed Respondent
(ii) the mecondnamed Reapondent;
approached Mr. John Grigg with a euggestion that he join the firstnamed and/or the eecondnamed Respondents and establish with thmm a business of manufacturing animal castration rings;

(b) If yes to any part of part (a) of this Interrogatory, give the usual particulars of each approach, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

(i) the date of each approach;
(ii) the substance of what wae said on each approach;
(iii) where the new businese wan to be located;
(iv) whether the propomed businemm was to sell animal castration rings to prsonm who are premently cumtomore of the Applicant;
(V) the persons who were present during each approach
(where such approaches were in person)."

It is alleged in paragraph 21 of the amended statement of claim that prior to 27th November 1987 the second respondent wae under an obligation or duty to the applicant to:

" (i) merve the Applicant with good faith and fidelity;
not by any act incompatible with his employment by the

Applicant or to the Applicant's business; Applicant inflict h a m or cause loss or damage to the
devote all his time and attention in the performance of his duties and in the discharge of hie obligatione to the Applicant as might reasonably be required of him;
(Vii) not make improper uee of hie position to gain an advantage for himeelf or any other person to the detrimnt of the Applicant;
(viii) emcept with the conaent of the Applicant not engage in or
be intereeted directly or indirectly in any capacity in
any trade, busineee or occupation whatsoever other than the business of the Applicant that ahould disadvantage, detrimentally affect or encroach upon the Applicant's business."

However there is no allegation of a specific breach of any of those obligations or duties by approaching Mr Grigg to join in
establishing a business of manufacturing animal castration
rings, or otherwise taking any step to set up such a business. I would therefore disallow interrogatory 27 as too wide or

f iahing .
"(a) State whether the firstnamed Respondent and the secondnamed
Rospondont:
(i)         had discussions;
(ii)        decided upon;
(iii)       negotiated;

the establishment of a buainesa of manufacturing and selling
animal castration ring0 in Australia prior to January, 1988;

(b) If yes to any part of part (a) of this Interrogatory, give the usual particulars of each diacusaion, decision or negotiation including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

(L) the date thereof;

(ii) the substance thereof;
(iii) the place (where a meeting waa involved) where the meeting took place."

For the reasons outlined in respect of interrogatory 2 7 , I would also disallow this interrogatory.

"(a) State whether prior to 31 December, 1987 the Respondents or one or more of t h m communicated with:

(i) Victorian Producers' Co-operative;
(ii) any branch of Dalgety Farmers;
(iii) any branch of the Murray Goulburn Trading Co.;
(iv) any branch of the Murray River Wholesalere;
(V) any members of the Combined Rural Traders;
(Vi) any agents of Elders Pastoral Co.;
for the purpome of soliciting orders for products to be
mupplimd by the Respondents or one or more of them;

(b)

If yam to any part of part (a) of this Interrogatory, give the umual particulars of each communication including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

(i) the date thereof;
(ii) the mubstance thereof;

(iii)

the precime person or permons by whom the comunication was made and to whom the comrmunication was made;

(iv)

whether the person to whom the communication was made was at the time of the communication a customer or supplier (stating which) of the Applicant."

Although paragraph 17 of the amended statement of claim

under a duty to keep confidential to the applicant the alleges that each of the first and second respondents waa

applicant's confidential information including, (by definition in the particulars of paragraph 16), the names, addresses and buying histories of the applicant's customers, no breach is alleged of that duty by soliciting orders from any of the firm or companies specified in part (a) of interrogatory 29 or any other customer of the applicant. I would therefore disallow interrogatory 29 as irrelevant, too wide or fishing.

-torv 3Q enquires whether in or about December 1987
the second respondent or any other respondent placed an order

with Nelson & CO for the supply of dagging shears or collected a quantity of dagging shears. Presumably, Nelson & CO was a

supplier to the applicant so that information as to it was part of the further information which it is alleged the first and second respondents were under a duty to keep confidential. However, as with the duties discussed in relation to interrogatories 28 and 29 no breach of that duty has been pleaded. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those given in respect of those interrogatories I would disallow interrogatory 30.
"(a) State whether:

(L) in or about the month of October, 1987;

(ii)

in any other and if so which month or months in 1987;
(iii) in or about the month of January, 1988;
the Respondents or one or more of them held any discussions

with respect to the establishment of the business of the Rampondents or one or more of them and if so, give the usual
particulars of each discussion including without limiting the
generality of the foregoing!

A. the date of the discussion;

B.

whether the discussion took place at a meeting at which any and if so which actual persons were prement and the location of the said meeting;

C.

whether to any and if so what step or steps which were taken by any and if so which of the Respondents towards the establishment of any of the said businesses;

(b) State whether in or about the month of October, 1987:

(L) the firstnamed Respondent;
(ii) the secondnamed Respondent;
(iii) the fifthnamed Respondent;
took any and if so what step or steps towards the establishment of a business for the production, manufacture, distribution and/or sale of animal castration rings;

(C) If yes to part (b) of this Interrogatory, give full and precise particulars of each step taken by each such Respondent betwen the months of October, 1987 and February, 1988."

Like interrogatories 27 and 28 this interrogatory is unsupported by any allegation of a breach of duty inhering in the setting up of a business for the production, manufacture distribution or sale of animal castration rings. Accordingly for the reasons given in respect of those earlier interrogatories, I would disallow interrogatory 31.
"(a) State whether in or about 1987 the Respondents or one or more of them (stating precisely which) made application to the Shire of Sunbury for the lease of factory unit No. 1 Horn Street, Sunbury;

(b)

If yes to part (a) of this Interrogatory, state by which actual person or persons and on which date or dates application was made to the Shire of sunbury for the lease of the said factory unit;

(C) If yes to part (a) of this Interrogatory, state by which person occupied and for the purpose of conducting what business or

or persons it was intended that the said factory unit would be
businesses;

(d)

If yes to part (a) of this Interrogatory, state whether the said application was made pursuant to any:

(ii) discussions;
(iii) understanding;

between the Respondents or one or more of them (identifying which) and if so, give the usual particulars of each such agremont, discussion or understanding."

I presume that this interrogatory is designed to seek an
admission that one or more of the respondents applied for a lease of a factory unit at Sunbury for use in the manufacture, sale or distribution of animal castration rings. If such a lease had been obtained and the premises had been so used wholly or partly for the benefit of the second respondent before 27 November 1987 that might, prima facie, constitute a breach of one or more of the duties pleaded in paragraph 21 of the amended statement of claim which is discussed above in relation to interrogatory 27. However, since no relevant breach of any of those duties has been pleaded, I would disallow interrogatory 32 as oppressive because it is too wide
or fishing.
It will be apparent from the fact that I have found it necessary to examine individually each of the interrogatories for the examination of the second respondent, that I do not

propose to disallow the interrogatories as a whole as prolix and oppressive. That such a course is open in an appropriate

case was succinctly demonstrated by Myers J in -can Flan=

Co. Inc. v -em 1Austfeua) Ptv. Ltd. [No

21 [l9651 N.S.W.R. 193 where his Honour observed, at 196
'It was established under the earlier English rules that interrogatories which were prolix and oppressive or unnecessary could
k disallowed as a whole, even though some of them were proper, and
that the Court was not required to go through interrogatories of that kind and ascertain which were admissible and which were not. It was also established that the Court was entitled to come to the oonclusion that interrogatories were of the kind specified on a general view of the interrogatories and indeed that the mere
obligation of the oppoaito party and the Court t o go through the intortopatorios and pick out from a largo number tha t wore improp.r tlu c & a r a t i n fow fha t w r o allowablo,~ was i t s e l f unroasonablo ind itmolf could constitute omromsivanosa. It h u h n contondd that t h a t principle doom not iriy longor apply because the English ru les

han k . n altorod. But the linnual Practice for 1965 and

L.*. a t the pago t o which I havo ea r l i e r rotor-
the practice as a t i l l k i n g observed in England notwithstanding tha al torat ion of the rulom. It is, too, within my am permonal Imovlodgo that tho practice omtablishod by the o u l i o t camos has always boon fo l lowd i n t h i s Court. Indeod. it was fo l lowd as

recently a s l962 by Jacobs J., i n v (No.3). [l9621

U.S.W.R. 1223."

See also m v [l9051 V.L.R. 377 and the extensive
citation by avBeckett J. at 384 of passages from Cawley v

m (1883) 32 W.R. 33.
In view of the observations which I have made about the respects to which the amended defences in this matter do not conform with 0.11 rr 13 and 18, I consider that I should first direct that the defences be amended to comply with those rules. The first consequential order will be that- the applicant have leave in light of the relevant defence as to

:r'

amended and these reasons to file and serve a fresh set of

Secondly, I shall order that the second respondent within a

interrogatories for the examination of the second respondent.

specified time file and serve answers, to that fresh set of interrogatories, saving all just objections to answering individual interrogatories.

The respondents, on the one hand have failed in their motion that they not be required to answer any interrogatories and deficiencies have been revealed in their defences. On the

i .*.- other hand, significant numbers of the applicant's
interrogatories have been disallowed as oppressive or irrelevant on the pleadings as they stand. Accordingly, I consider the appropriate order as to costs is that the costs of and incidental to the motion on notice dated 5 July 1989 of amending the defences herein and of formulating the fresh sets of interrogatories to which I have referred, be costs in the
cause .
I direct the parties to bring in minutes of orders to give effect to these reasons as far as they are applicable in respect of the interrogatories for the examination pf the first respondent, and the fourth and fifth respondents as well as in respect of those for the examination of the second respondent which I have examined in detail.
I certify that this and the
preceding 31 pages are a true

copy of the Reasons for Judgment
herein of the Honourable Mr
Justice Ryan.
Dated: 30 October 1991

Counsel for Applicant: Mr D Shavin
Solicitor for the Applicant: Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr J Langmead
Solicitor for the Respondents: Arthur Robinson &
Hedderwicks
Date of Hearing: 29 October 1990
Date of Judgment: 30 October 1991

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Leader Products Pty Ltd v Desmond Dumbrell [1991] FCA 726

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

Tha rerpondentm have moved for m ordar	l
rule.3(3) of the Ruler of thir Court that t h q not b. roqulrad	!
oxadnation on behalf of tha applicant. Alternatively, they l
naek to be raliwmd of tha neod to anrwer certain epbciflad
I
armear copyright. Th. drawing8 are alleged to contain

have induced brarcher of contract by the firrt and roeend;	I
i

(L)	the first date upon which the Applicant successfully caused the Minock machine to produce animal castration rings suitable for sale;
(ii)	the volume of animal castration rings suitable for sale that were produced by the Minock machine between the arrival date and 1 May, 1984;
(iii)	where any animal castration rings produced by the Minock machine prior to May, 1984 may now be inspected;
(iv)	the usual particulars of any sale by the Applicant of animal castration rings produced by the Minock machine prior to May, 1984 known to you."

objectionable. Directed to the second respondent who, I	On its face, and standing alone, this interrogatory is not
gather, is no longer an employee of the applicant, it does not require him to make enquiries of other persons who were or who still are employees of the applicant, or to examine any documents no longer in his possession or power which he may have seen, or even produced, whilst an employee of the applicant. So understood, it requires him only to answer from such knowledge information and belief as remains to him from
the t h e when he was an employee of the Applicant. Accordingly, upon the basis that this interrogatory has to be answered by the second respondent, I would not require an anamr to the corresponding interrogatory directed to the third, fourth or fifth respondents who could only answer it after making enquiries of the first and second respondents.

(Vii)	production of animal castration rings with "internal flats" in edge;
(viii)	an after treatment process for the treating of animal castration rings produced by the said machine. '

(b)	If yes to any part of part (c) of interrogatory 2 hereof, dmscrib. each of the aaid deeign problame encountered by the Applicant and each step taken by the Applicant to resolve each such problm including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the involvement of each of the First or Second
.	Rospondmnts in any such step."

(a)	the dog. tank into which pins could be inaerted prior to them being coatod with latex;
(b)	the tip-wash tank into which pine could be inserted prior to them being coated with latex;
(c)	the latex tank;
(d)	the parer drive to the tip-wiper brushes;
(m)	the length of the beader/stripper brushes;
(f)	the power control to the beader and stripper brushes;

A.	the date of the request;
B.	to whom the request was directed;
C.	the subject matter of the request!
D.	whether any (and if so which) parts or services were delivered to the Applicant in response to the request;
E.	the identity of each person or company by whom such parts and/or mervices were supplied to the Applicant."

much of part *( c )* as requires a statement of the matters by	reason of which it is said that the creator of a given drawing
did not create it in the course of his employment by the applicant. I regard that part of the interrogatory as oppressive because it is fishing and enquires after matters of law or mixed fact and law.
Another objection taken to answering this interrogatory is
that before inspecting th applicant's drawings for the purpose of answering it, the second respondent is required to give an undertaking to keep confidential the information derived from that inspection. I do not regard that as a valid objection because the undertaking would preserve the confidentiality only of information derived from the inspection and would not impose any obligation in respect of information forming part of the second respondent's "know how" or otherwise derived from some other source.

Interrogatory 8 by asking whether a given person or persons created a particular drawing requires an answer as to the physical act of creation based on recollection and visual inspection of the drawing. Interrogatory 9, if it is not more	surplusage must go beyond that requirement and oblige the	deponent to identify matters by reason of which it is said
that the second respondent alone or in conjunction with John Griff made some unspecified intellectual or other intangible contribution to the creation of each drawing. So understood this interrogatory is oppressive for reasons of the kind indicated above in respect of the concluding part of interrogatory 8(c).

the draftclman of interrogatories 10 and 11 to explore in a	That non-compliance with those rules has induced, I consider, in accordance with rule 13 of this Order."
fiehing, epeculative way whether the first, second and third respondents are contending that the relevant information was not confidential because of some prior publication or because it waa already in the public domain or for some other reason. Accordingly, paragraph 15 of the amended defence should be
amended to make clear what it is that the first three respondents say about the allegedly confidential information. When that is done interrogatories like the present interrogatories 10 and 11 should be unnecessary, at least in their present wide form.

(a)	whother the same has been published to any per#on other than the Applicant, its employees and the peraon creating the documont and if so, give the usual particulars of each publication known to you;
(b)	the information contained therein has been published to any person other than the Applicant, its employees or the person creating the document and if so, give the usual particulars of each act of publication known to you."

to the applicant the applicant's further confidential	information, and a duty of good faith, and breaches of those
duties which have been extensively particularized largely by reference to documents seized pursuant to an "aton P i u w order made by Jenkinson J on 16 June 1988. By paragraphs 16 to 23 of their amended defence the first, second and third reapondents have admitted that the first respondent and second respondent were employed by the applicant but have otherwise
generally denied the allegations in paragraphs 16 to 23 of the amended statement of claim.
Although I coneider that interrogatory 13 in its present form ia too wide, that vice is partly attributable to the evasive general denials in paragraphs 16 and following of the amended defence. Accordingly, those paragraphs should be amended to conform with 011.rr. 13 and 18 and the applicant should be able to administer freeh interrogatories appropriately confined to the issues identified by the defence as so amended.

(j.1	the n a m and addreee of hie amployer;
(ii)	the precise duties undertaken by him in the couree of him employment;
(iii)	the title or deecription of each job held by him."

"(a) State whether the Respondents or one or more of them (identifying precisely which) has, since January, 1987 sought to construct and/or constructed a machine to be ueed for the production of castration rings (the Respondents' machine);
(b)	If yes to part (a) of this Interrogatory, state when work first commoncad on the design of the Respondents' machine;

(L)	the secondnamed Respondent;
(ii)	the fourthnamed Respondent;
(iii)	any other and if so state which Respondent or Reapondentm requested Delalande Engineering of 6 Beckett Avenue, East Keilor to:
A. design;
B. manufacture;
aluminium pins on any and if so state precisely which date or dates between 27 November, 1987 and 22nd June, 1988;

(iii)	drawing of an aluminium pin to be produced for the
Respondents supplied Delalande Engineering with a any other and if so state which Respondent or
Respondents or one or more of them between 27 November, 1987 and 22 June, 1988;

(a)	the usual particulars of each request;
(b)	whether (and if so give the usual particulars of) any:
(i) order; (ii) invoice;

(d)	each date upon which each request was made;
(m)	from what person or persona information was obtained which led to the request being directed by the Respondents to each such prson. "

" (iii)	The Respondents or one or more of them caused, procured or permitted or facilitated the manufacture of a machine to be used for the production of animal castration rings
utilising the Applicant's confidential information for
the benefit of the Respondents or one or more of them and to the detriment of the Applicant and its said business.

[1991] FCA 726

30 Oct 1991

transmitting part of it to the suppliers or contractors	specified in interrogatory 23 to compel an answer to either
interrogatory 2 3 or 24.

the S e c o n d n ~	Respondent has:
(c)	procured and/or received secret commissions from King Snaps Industrial Corporation, Taiwan for orders placed for the supply of goods to or at the request of the Applicant."

(a)	each of the designs corresponding with the copyright has been applied industrially by or with the licence of the Applicant;
(b)	articles to which those designs have been applied have been sold, let for hire or offered or exposed tor sale or hire in Australia;
(C)	at the t i m when the articles were sold, let for hire or offered or exposed for sale or hire they were not articles in respect of which the designs had been registered under the Designm Act 1906,

particulars of the allegations in paragraph 24(2) (a) and (b)	In my view Interrogatory 26 embodies a legitimate request for
of the further amended defence and if those particulars are not supplied when the defence is redrawn in conformity with the order proposed above, I would require an answer to an interrogatory in the form of interrogatory 26.

(L)	in or about the month of October, 1987;
(ii)	in any other and if so which month or months in 1987;
(iii)	in or about the month of January, 1988;

with respect to the establishment of the business of the	Rampondents or one or more of them and if so, give the usual
particulars of each discussion including without limiting the generality of the foregoing!

A.	the date of the discussion;
B.	whether the discussion took place at a meeting at which any and if so which actual persons were prement and the location of the said meeting;
C.	whether to any and if so what step or steps which were taken by any and if so which of the Respondents towards the establishment of any of the said businesses;

Secondly, I shall order that the second respondent within a	interrogatories for the examination of the second respondent.	specified time file and serve answers, to that fresh set of interrogatories, saving all just objections to answering individual interrogatories.
The respondents, on the one hand have failed in their motion that they not be required to answer any interrogatories and deficiencies have been revealed in their defences. On the

Counsel for Applicant:	Mr D Shavin
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr J Langmead
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks
Date of Hearing:	29 October 1990
Date of Judgment:	30 October 1991